It remains for us to outline the tactics which Iskra adopted and consistently pursued in organizational relations toward Rabochee Delo. This tactic is already fully expressed in No. 1 of Iskra, in the article on "The Split in the Foreign Union of Russian Social-Democrats"[104]. We immediately took the position that the actual "Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad," which was recognized at the first congress of our party as its foreign representative, had split into two organizations; – that the question of the party's representation remains open, being only temporarily and conditionally resolved by the fact that at the Paris international congress two members were elected to the permanent International Socialist Bureau from Russia, one from each part of the split "Union"{69}. We declared that in essence Rabochee Delo was wrong; we took a decisive principled stand on the side of the Osvobozhdenie Truda group, but at the same time refused to go into the details of the split and noted the "Union's" merit in the sphere of purely practical work[105].

Thus our position was to a certain extent a waiting one: we made a concession to the opinion that dominated among the majority of Russian social-democrats – that even the most decisive enemies of "economism" could work side by side with the "Union," since the "Union" had repeatedly declared its principled agreement with the Osvobozhdenie Truda group, not pretending to have an independent character in fundamental questions of theory and tactics. The correctness of the position we adopted was indirectly confirmed by the fact that almost simultaneously with the appearance of the first issue of Iskra (December 1900), three members separated from the "Union," who formed the so-called "Group of Initiators" and appealed: 1. to the foreign section of the Iskra organization, 2. to the revolutionary organization Sotsial-Demokrat{70}, and 3. to the "Union" – with a proposal to mediate in conducting negotiations on reconciliation. The first two organizations immediately responded in agreement, the third – with a refusal. True, when one speaker expounded these facts at the "unification" congress of last year, a member of the "Union's" administration declared that their refusal was caused exclusively by the fact that the "Union" was dissatisfied with the composition of the group of initiators. Considering it my duty to cite this explanation, I cannot, however, fail to note for my part that I consider it unsatisfactory: knowing of the agreement of the two organizations to negotiations, the "Union" could have approached them through another intermediary or directly.

In spring 1901, both Zarya (No. 1, April) and Iskra (No. 4, May) came forward with direct polemics against Rabochee Delo[106]. The latter especially attacked Rabochee Delo's "Historical Turn," which in its April issue – consequently already after the spring events – displayed instability regarding the infatuation with terrorism and "bloody" appeals. Despite this polemic, the "Union" responded by agreeing to the resumption of negotiations on reconciliation through the mediation of a new group of "reconcilers"{71}. A preliminary conference of representatives from the three aforementioned organizations took place in June and worked out a draft treaty on the basis of a most detailed "principled agreement," printed by the "Union" in the brochure "Two Congresses" and by the League in the brochure "Documents of the 'Unification' Congress."

This latter expression gave rise to a characteristic episode at the congress. On the one hand, B. Krichevsky seized upon the word "caught," deciding that this was a slip of the tongue revealing an evil intent on our part ("to set a trap"), and exclaimed pathetically: "Whom exactly, whom were we catching here?" – "Indeed, whom?" – Plekhanov asked ironically. – "I will help Comrade Plekhanov's lack of wit," answered B. Krichevsky, "I will explain to him that here we were catching the editorial board of Rabochee Delo" (general laughter). But we didn't allow ourselves to be caught!" (remarks from the left: all the worse for you!). – On the other hand, a member of the "Struggle" group (the group of reconcilers), speaking against the "Union's" amendments to the resolutions and wishing to defend our speaker, declared that the expression "catching," obviously slipped out accidentally in the heat of polemic.

As for myself, I think that our speaker will not benefit from such "defense." I think that the words "caught someone" were "said in jest but designed seriously": we have always accused Rabochee Delo of instability, of wavering, and therefore naturally had to strive to catch it in order to make further wavering impossible. There could be no question of evil intent here, since it was a matter of principled instability. And we managed to "catch" the "Union" in such a comradely fashion[108] that Krichevsky himself and another member of the "Union's" administration signed the June resolutions.

The articles in No. 10 of Rabochee Delo (our comrades saw this issue only when they arrived at the congress, a few days before the sessions began) clearly showed that from summer to autumn a new turn had occurred in the "Union": the "economists" had again gained the upper hand, and the editorial board, obedient to every "wind," began again to defend "the most flagrant Bernsteinists" and "freedom of criticism," to defend "spontaneity" and to preach through Martynov's voice the "theory of narrowing" the sphere of our political influence (allegedly for the purpose of complicating the influence itself). Once again Parvus's apt remark was confirmed – that it is difficult to catch an opportunist with any formula whatsoever: he readily signs any formula and just as readily abandons it, since opportunism consists precisely in the absence of any definite and firm principles. Today the opportunists rejected all attempts to introduce opportunism, rejected all narrowness, solemnly promised to "never forget for a moment about the overthrow of autocracy," to conduct "agitation not only on the basis of the everyday struggle of wage labor against capital," etc., etc. And tomorrow they change their manner of expression and return to the old game under the guise of defending spontaneity, the forward progress of gray, flowing struggle, the exaltation of demands promising tangible results, etc. While continuing to assert that in the articles in No. 10 the "Union" "saw and sees no heretical deviation from the general principles of the conference project" ("Two Congresses," p. 26), the "Union" reveals thereby only complete inability or unwillingness to understand the essence of the disagreements.

After No. 10 of Rabochee Delo, only one attempt remained for us: to begin a general discussion in order to convince ourselves whether the entire "Union" was in solidarity with these articles and with its editorial board. The "Union" is particularly displeased with us for this, accusing us of attempting to sow discord in the "Union," of interfering in matters not our concern, etc. The accusations are clearly unfounded, since with an elective editorial board that "turns" at the slightest breeze, everything depends precisely on the direction of the wind, and we determined this direction in closed sessions, at which besides members of the organizations gathered for unification, there was no one. The introduction by the "Union" of amendments to the June resolutions deprived us of the last shadow of hope for agreement. The amendments documented the new turn toward "economism" and the solidarity of the "Union's" majority with No. 10 of Rabochee Delo. From the circle of manifestations of opportunism was struck "so-called economism" (on the grounds of the alleged "indefiniteness of meaning" of these three words – although from such reasoning only the necessity of more precisely determining the essence of a widely spread delusion follows), and "Millerandism" was also struck (although B. Krichevsky defended it both in Rabochee Delo Nos. 2–3, p. 83–84 and even more directly in Vorwärts[109]). Despite the fact that the June resolutions definitely indicated the task of social-democracy – "to lead every manifestation of the struggle of the proletariat against all forms of political, economic, and social oppression," thereby demanding the introduction of planfulness and unity into all these manifestations of struggle – the "Union" added completely superfluous words that "economic struggle is a powerful stimulus to mass movement" (these words in themselves are undeniable, but given the existence of narrow "economism," they could not fail to give rise to false interpretations). Moreover, even a direct narrowing of "politics" was introduced into the June resolutions both by removing the words "not for a moment" (forget about the task of overthrowing autocracy) and by adding words that "economic struggle is the most widely applicable means for drawing the masses into active political struggle." It is understandable that after the introduction of such amendments all the speakers on our side began one after another to refuse to speak, finding further negotiations completely useless with people who were again turning toward "economism" and securing for themselves freedom to waver.

"Precisely that which the 'Union' considered a condition sine qua non[110] of the durability of the future agreement, i.e., the preservation of the independent character of Rabochee Delo and its autonomy – precisely this Iskra considered a stumbling block for agreement" ("Two Congresses," p. 25). This is quite inaccurate. We never encroached upon the autonomy of Rabochee Delo[111]. Its independent character we indeed unconditionally rejected, if we understand by this an "independent character" in fundamental questions of theory and tactics: the June resolutions precisely contain an unconditional denial of such an independent character, for this "independent character" in practice always meant, we repeat, all sorts of wavering and the support by these waverings of the dominant and intolerable party disorganization among us. Through the articles in No. 10 and the "amendments," Rabochee Delo clearly demonstrated its desire to preserve for itself precisely this independent character, and such a desire naturally and inevitably led to a break and the declaration of war. But we were all prepared to recognize an "independent character" of Rabochee Delo in the sense of its concentration on definite literary functions. The correct distribution of these functions suggested itself: 1. a scholarly journal, 2. a political newspaper, and 3. popular collections and popular brochures. Only the agreement of Rabochee Delo to such a distribution would have proved its sincere desire to settle accounts once and for all with those delusions against which the June resolutions are directed, only such a distribution would have eliminated every possibility of friction and ensured the durability of the agreement, while at the same time serving as a basis for a new upsurge of our movement and its new successes.

Now no Russian social-democrat can doubt that the final break of the revolutionary direction with the opportunistic direction was caused not by any "organizational" circumstances, but precisely by the desire of the opportunists to strengthen the independent character of opportunism and to continue introducing confusion into minds through the reasonings of Krichevskys and Martynovs.